The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on the case of Brenda Evers Andrew, the only woman on death row in Oklahoma, raising concerns about the fairness of her trial. The Court found that prosecutors may have introduced irrelevant and prejudicial evidence against Andrew, which could have undermined her right to a fair trial. The evidence in question included details about Andrew’s sex life, her role as a mother and wife, and her clothing choices, which were used to paint her as a morally flawed individual.
Andrew was convicted of capital murder in 2001 for the killing of her husband, Robert Andrew. She and her lover, James Pavatt, were both charged in the crime. The prosecution’s theory was that Andrew conspired with Pavatt to murder her husband in order to collect on a life insurance policy. Pavatt was also convicted and sentenced to death. After the murder, Andrew and Pavatt fled to Mexico, and although Pavatt initially denied her involvement, he later confessed to the crime.
During Andrew’s trial, prosecutors presented extensive evidence about her personal life that had little to do with the crime itself. They introduced testimony about her sexual partners, her provocative clothing, and even the underwear she packed for vacations. Some witnesses were called to testify about Andrew’s behavior, including her sexual history and her perceived failings as a mother. In closing arguments, the prosecution invoked these themes, emphasizing Andrew’s alleged affairs and her sexual behavior, even displaying her underwear to the jury.
Andrew’s defense team objected to this evidence, arguing that it was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. They also took issue with the prosecution’s use of the term “slut puppy” to describe Andrew, which they argued was an attempt to dehumanize her and distract the jury from the actual evidence.
Despite these concerns, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the Court’s ruling. Thomas, in particular, argued that the trial was fair and that the introduction of evidence about Andrew’s personal life did not violate her constitutional rights. He maintained that the prosecution had presented overwhelming evidence of Andrew’s guilt, including details about the victim’s discovery of tampered brake lines and the couple’s strained relationship. Thomas suggested that much of the evidence about Andrew’s personal life was relevant to establishing her motive and intent.
While Thomas acknowledged that some of the evidence may have been irrelevant, he argued that it did not render the trial unfair. He noted that the prosecutors did not mention Andrew’s sexual history in their closing arguments and that the references to her failings as a mother were a response to her defense’s portrayal of her as a loving parent.
Thomas also downplayed the significance of the “slut puppy” comment, explaining that the term was used in an abusive phone call between Andrew and her husband, in which she falsely accused him of infidelity. According to Thomas, the prosecution was merely recounting this call and did not use the term as a direct insult against Andrew.
The case highlights ongoing concerns about the fairness of the criminal justice system, particularly in capital cases. While the Court’s ruling focused on procedural issues related to the introduction of evidence, the dissenting opinion underscores the deep divisions among the justices on what constitutes a fair trial. Oklahoma, which resumed executions in 2022 after a six-year hiatus, continues to face scrutiny over its death penalty practices, particularly the treatment of women on death row. Currently, Brenda Andrew remains the only woman among the 32 inmates on Oklahoma’s death row.
